Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Official Report 476KB pdf
Contents
- Attendance
- Common Agricultural Policy and Neonicotinoids
- Subordinate Legislation
- Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
- Petitions
Petitions
Agenda item 4 is consideration of four—I am sorry; three—petitions. It is getting to that stage of the day. I urge members to have in front of them the relevant paper.
As part of our work programme, we agreed to look at petitions PE1336, PE1450 and PE1386 to see whether we could decide that we had dealt with them. I am open to suggestions from members about what they think the outcomes should be. Various options are given in paper RACCE/S4/13/21/4.
Wild Salmon and Sea Trout (Protection) (PE1336)
PE1336 is about farmed salmon and sea lice. What do members suggest that we should do?
I am not sure whether it amounts to a declaration of interests, but I feel that I should highlight the fact that I am a sea trout champion.
We have had a lot of evidence on sea lice from a range of groups and individuals, as the paper highlights. It is my view that because we will continue to monitor the situation and to request further updates, and because a range of groups from the Scottish Government will look at the issue and the minister has given a commitment to keep it under review, it might be appropriate to close the petition.
I will be brief and say that I concur with that, but I am afraid that I do not think that the issue will go away. I noted with interest that Marine Harvest has announced that it is to seek certification. Part of the certification process will eventually involve publication of farm-by-farm weekly sea lice data. That gives even greater prominence to the question that was raised during our evidence taking: why is the rest of the industry not prepared to go along with that? I am perfectly happy for us to close the petition. I accept that we have had a huge amount of debate on the issue, but it ain’t going away; it will come back.
I concur with my colleagues. As the paper notes on page 2,
“the Minister has given a commitment to keep the issue of sea lice reporting under review”.
As the scrutinising committee, we should ensure that the minister does that. It should be an action point that we keep in the back of our minds that we ensure that the minister keeps the issue under review. If he does not, I am sure that some of us will raise that in the future, but I am sure that he will.
I get the sense that members want to close the petition but want to keep monitoring the issue. We should probably incorporate that in our work programme so that we can do so regularly. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Trout Stocks (Effects of Farmed and Hatchery-reared Trout and Salmon) (PE1450)
PE1450, by Mr James Mackie, asks that scientific studies be conducted to monitor any changes in the behaviour, density, longevity and survival rate of, and the genetic and DNA markers in, wild sea trout and brown trout in rivers that are stocked with farmed brown trout and hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon. Do members have a view on it?
Now that the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill has been passed by the Parliament, we know that it will not result in the production of the specific data that the petition seeks, so I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask it for an update and any other views on the petition, and that we reconsider the petition when that information has been received.
Very good. Should we keep the petition open while we do what the paper suggests, or can we close it, given what will happen as a result of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill?
I suggest that we keep it open until we receive the information from the Scottish Government.
Do members concur?
Members indicated agreement.
Inshore Fisheries (Management) (PE1386)
PE1386, by Richard Munday, is about static gear-only inshore fisheries, particularly in Loch Torridon. Members will recall that we took evidence on it. We have a number of options for deciding what to do. Do members have a view?
My instinct is that, unlike the situation with the previous petition, we have a Government response. When we have a Government response, it seems to me that the right thing to do is to send it to the petitioner to see what they have to say about it. That is the right process. We do not necessarily want a very long game of ping-pong, but I suggest that it would be appropriate to let the petitioner have his say at this point.
You feel that that major document of two and a half pages is something that the petitioner should comment on.
It has been suggested that we keep the petition open and write to the petitioner to seek their views on the information that the Scottish Government has provided. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Investigation of such an issue might form a useful part of our away day activities. I do not know whether that would be possible, but it would be good to see on the ground how marine protected areas and inshore fisheries are likely to work. I leave that as a possibility for the work planning day. I am sure that the clerks will have their own ideas about what we should do. Ultimately, we can decide.
Quite, convener.
I thank members for their consideration of the petitions and their comments on them.
Meeting closed at 12:11.